ANALYSIS PAPER ON THE AUSTRALIAN OPINION ARTICLE
The article tries to describe the challenges facing the Australian legislative arms of government represented by the Senate and the House of Representatives. It argues that the Senate has apparently failed to play the roles expected of it, but rubber stamps or blocks legislation based party lines (Lelliott, 2014). This is because previously, the Australian Senate was given much attention not for the good reasons as would have been expected, but because of failure to understand its purpose. The article further highlights the kind of misunderstandings between the two houses; the Senate and the lower house. In Overall, the article analyses the situation and suggests potent solutions which could be adopted to solve the stalemate. It supports the adoption of a “reformed House of Lords proposed by the British” (Lelliott, 2014). Apparently, the reform would see certain changes which necessary to steer citizen oriented legislation.
The article recognizes that the Australian constitution was written long before issues of party politics became into foreplay. Contextually, it gave the Senate the impression of reasonably allowing the representation of state interests directly to the parliament (Lelliott, 2014). However, today, most Senate seats are at the potent of the Labor, Liberals, nationals, and Greens. It is quite laughable when even small parties and independent representatives futilely push partisan positions over individual state interests. Ironically though, the senate has been cheered to be living to its expected role as far as the review in “preventing untrammeled power” to its members are concerned (Lelliott, 2014). However, based on the constitution, none of the aforementioned roles apparently played by the Senate match the public expectations. The article asserts that whenever the Senate have majority same as the House of Representatives, it merely rubber stamps replicating the Howard government of 2004 (Lelliott, 2014). On the other hand, when the opposition occasionally overpowers the Senate, it simply bars important legislation because the two Houses certainly have equal powers.
This article predicts a scenario that is likely to befall Australia under Tony Abbot’s current leadership on July 2013 where by a few senators would balance power outside the established parties. This would result into a worst kind of deal by enabling a continued service of vested interests as occasioned by the Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine (Lelliott, 2014). Therefore, the article suggests that Australia should not allow the existence of its outdated upper House, but rather imitate models which have worked elsewhere including the one proposed by the British House of Lords. Lelliott (2004) further argues that the supposed House of Lords in the British political landscape and constitutional debate has been the point of references by many countries. The White Paper of 2011 released by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition was backed by almost all parties to entrench democratic conventions of long term leaders (Lelliott, 2014). In other words, the majority of members would be elected for a maximum of 15 years and not allowed to contest a political seat for the second time. In essence, the proposed legislation discouraged firm political party control of any chamber business, but paved way for free politics based on the agenda and intellectualism (Lelliott, 2014). In addition, 20% of the Lords were to be appointed by an independent commission thus not only encouraging talent, but also limiting the chances of any party having the majority. Unfortunately, the noble proposal was killed in mid-2012 by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition government due to a fall out on a range of constitutional reform issues.
The article concludes by firmly seconding the reforms proposed by the British government because it would ensure that there is Mutual Corporation between the House of Lords and the Representatives for the benefit of the Australian citizens. Consequently, the House of Lords would remain the genuine house of the Review (Lelliott, 2014). Members would also be elected on the basis of regionalism, with one third of the places elected during every general election. Lelliott (2004) advises the Australian government not to blindly accept or reject the proposal by the British, but keenly look into the model of a “reformed House of Lords” and the perceived merits. Perhaps this would be in spirit with the public wishes of being represented by the bright and goal oriented leaders.
References
Lelliott, J. 2014. What Australia needs is a genuine house of review. The Drum: Analysis and opinion on the issues of the day, [online] 3rd January. Available at: <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/lelliott-getting-rid-of-the-senate/5183256> [Accessed 3rd January 2014]
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]